ON THE TWO VALERIANS. 341 



of these experiments, I may briefly repeat some of the views 



which have been held concerning these plants. 



[ Watson (Gyb. Brit. ii. p. 26) speaks of the " two alleged species " 



| as very doubtfully distinct, adding that he is not prepared to 



I separate the specimens contained in his own herbarium, u most or 



all of which probably belong to V. sambucifolia." Subsequently, in 

 various places, he seems to recognise the two plants as being dis- 

 tinguishable in some way, and (Compend. Suppl. p. 52) gives the 

 aggregate V. officinalis as occurring in Sub-prov. " 1-37," and 

 states that V. sambucifolia has " probably the same area/' On the 

 other hand, Mikanii is given for only Sub-prov. "4, 7, 8, 12, and 



KJ/' .. In Top - Bot " ( ed# *' and "0 {t is mentioned that the 

 ''Mikanii of Eng. Bot., ed. hi., is very sparingly on record hitherto. " 



lhis quite accords with my own observations as to the relative 

 rarity of the two plants, so far as a few of the southern counties 

 are concerned, but not with Sir J. D. Hooker's experience (Stud. 

 *lo., ed. ih. p. 197) that V. sambucifolia is "very local." As 

 Watson has remarked, F. sambucifolia is the V. officinalis of Smith, 

 who has, however, a var. /3. " V. sylvestris major montana, Bauh. 

 Pin.," which answers to Mikanii. Syme (Eng. Bot., ed. hi. vol. iv. 

 p. 236) can "scarcely separate V. sambucifolia even as a mere 

 variety," and adds — " the ripe fruit is said to be different in the 

 'Flora of Essex'; it varies slightly in both varieties, but I can see 

 no constant difference." Professor Babington (Man. Brit. Bot., 

 e d. viii. p. 177) separates the plants as varieties, adding under the 

 type (< V. officinalis L.'), "with suckers, not stoles"; and under 

 sainbucifolia, "stoles long." Beichenbach, whose 'Icones' are 

 here referred to, treats V. officinalis L. and V. exaltata Mikan as the 

 same species, the description being that usually restricted to the 

 latter plant. Prof. Babington's use of the character "suckers" 

 (" Surculi progeniei approximate nee stolones " ; Beich.) suggests 

 the possibility that V. exaltata may be a native of this country, 

 perhaps of the eastern counties. The two plants treated of in this 

 paper both produce long stolons, and accord therein with Koch's 

 description of his ■ V. officinalis L.' and V. sambucifolia Mikan. 

 Whether Koch is correct in his appreciation of the name V. offici- 

 nalis, or whether Beichenbach in applying the same name to 

 V. exaltata, I am unable to say ; but there is this in favour of the 

 latter view,— that Fries (Mant. iii. p. 1) speaks of "officinalis" as 

 being everywhere conspicuous for its want of stolons, about Upsala, 

 & c., and he admits sambucifolia as a distinct species on this very 

 ground. This, however, has only to do with the name ; the subject 

 of this paper is the difference between the two stoloniferous plants, 

 lurning to some local Floras, we find that Gibson (Flo. Essex) 

 separates two species as " alike in general appearance, but differing 

 *J the shape of the fruit and number of leaflets." Mr. Archer 

 Vnggs (Flo. Plymouth) has failed to distinguish the two. Mr. 

 J-ownsend (Flo. Hants) treats the plants as distinct species, and 

 doubtless the Hants officinalis is identical with the Surrey Mikanii 

 °* this paper, as the only localities given are a few in " woods on 

 a chalky soil." In one of the most recently published Floras, that 



